Okay, I can finally prove all you sample weighters are wrong

[King]

The fact that this whole "lol Obama's only up by 1 with a +7 sample that's junk" thing is still going on is crazy, but I finally woke up and realized that the proof that it's horsesh**t was right in the crosstabs all along.  We all talk about how pollsters don't weigh yet that hasn't seemed to convinced the skew poll people so here's another angle to look at it that proves poll skewing to be non-existant.

First, let's go back to the 2004 and 2008 Exit Polls:

2004
Democratic 37%
Republican 37%
Independent 26%

2008
Democratic 39%
Republican 32%
Independent 29%

Now, simply by looking at that we can say, it was +7 in a Democratic year but +0 in a Republican year and this seems like a Republican year so it has to be close to +0.  It sounds reasonable I suppose, but there's one big factor not being considered: why do people sign up for a political party? Their beliefs.  Personal beliefs are far stronger than affiliation.  If people feel their beliefs are not inline with a certain party, they will claim to leave it.  That's where the poll skewing shows itself to be non-existant, when we look at the exit polls on ideology:

2004
Liberal 21%
Moderate 45%
Conservative 34%
C+13

2008
Liberal 22%
Moderate 44%
Conservative 34%
C+12

Interestingly enough, the electorate's makeup by ideology didn't change much from 2004 to 2008.  What happened? McCain underperformed Bush in moderates by 6 percentage points.  Un-coincidentally, 5 points less  identified as Republican in 2008 compared to 2004; likely moderates who moved to Independent identification in 2008.

So, let's look at ideology identification in some 2012 national polls.  While nearly all polls ask this question, unfortunately, not all polls publish the makeup.  There also haven't been a lot of national polls done in recent weeks.  The most recent poll I can find which did publish the makeup was the NBC/WSJ poll (Obama 49-46) from 9/30.  Let's see what they found, first on Party ID:

NBC/WSJ
Democratic 32%
Republican 26%
Independent 40%
+6

Now, at this glance, it looks like NBC/WSJ is aligned to show a Democratic bias by showing the turnout for Democrats to be the same as 2008.  However, when we look at the ideological identification...

NBC/WSJ on 9/30
Liberal 22%
Moderate 38%
Conservative 37%
C+15

And there we have it.  Pretty close to both 2004 and 2008 exit polls.  In fact, the NBC/WSJ poll, if anything, has sampled this election to have more conservatives in it than even the 2004 election.  "Unskew it" to 2004 levels and:

NBC/WSJ on 9/30 (My Numbers)
Obama 50.44%
Romney 42.53%

Of course, those aren't scientific.

[Lief 🗽]

You're a genius. Seriously. Can't believe no one's thought of this.

[Speed of Sound]

You do your nickname proud, sir.

And while we're ".gif"ing...




But seriously, there's nowhere for this discussion to go from here. Party ID is a dead analysis point. I wonder if people will start overanalyzing these ideology numbers next instead? At least those would have a little more accuracy.

[NVGonzalez]

I have always thought that analyzing party ID numbers was too simple minded. One has to look at the demographic of a poll. Seniors, Latinos, blacks, whites, youngs, etc.

This though takes the cake.

[King]

But seriously, there's nowhere for this discussion to go from here. Party ID is a dead analysis point. I wonder if people will start overanalyzing these ideology numbers next instead? At least those would have a little more accuracy.

from Now i will be studying the numbers.  pls believe my numbers if u want to Live

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The problem is that 9/11 idiocy caused a significant change from 2000 to 2004. Here's 2000.

Liberal 20%
Moderate 50%
Conservative 29%

2004 was more similar to 1996

Liberal 20%
Moderate 47%
Conservative 33%


But then 1992 was like 2000

Liberal 21%
Moderate 49%
Conservative 30%

1992 was pretty different than 1988

Liberal 18%
Moderate 47%
Conservative 35%

[Lief 🗽]

According to Gallup, it looks like ideological breakdown hasn't changed too much since 2008, other than a marginal increase in conservatives and a marginal decrease in moderates.

[King]

The problem is that 9/11 idiocy caused a significant change from 2000 to 2004. Here's 2000.

Liberal 20%
Moderate 50%
Conservative 29%

2004 was more similar to 1996

Liberal 20%
Moderate 47%
Conservative 33%


But then 1992 was like 2000

Liberal 21%
Moderate 49%
Conservative 30%

1992 was pretty different than 1988

Liberal 18%
Moderate 47%
Conservative 35%

Doesn't look like 9/11 caused it to me.  2000 seems to be an outlier (perhaps because conservatism was down in popularity, hence "compassionate conservatism") while the rest of the elections back to 1988 are low-20s liberals, mid-30s conservatives, remainder moderate. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

According to Gallup, it looks like ideological breakdown hasn't changed too much since 2008, other than a marginal increase in conservatives and a marginal decrease in moderates.

Taking that into account, I think we might be looking at this for 2012:
Liberal 21%
Moderate 42%
Conservative 37%
C+16

[King]

According to Gallup, it looks like ideological breakdown hasn't changed too much since 2008, other than a marginal increase in conservatives and a marginal decrease in moderates.

Taking that into account, I think we might be looking at this for 2012:
Liberal 21%
Moderate 42%
Conservative 37%
C+16

those r my numbers will u Subscribe to my blog ?

[greenforest32]

Doesn't this still leave room for discussion of the ideological vote distribution?

What are your numbers for how the 2012 moderate vote splits between Obama and Romney?

[Speed of Sound]

Doesn't this still leave room for discussion of the ideological vote distribution?

What are your numbers for how the 2012 moderate vote splits between Obama and Romney?

Yeah, it definitely will just shift over to being the same discussion, just with new substance, so long as everyone is wise enough to read what King has put together here. But those numbers should be much easier to track and speculate on and shift accordingly compared to the highly fickle and unclear Party IDs.

[Wonkish1]

LOL, so now we're supposed to believe that GOP party ID is as low as during Watergate.

Look analyzing party ID skew in polls is a bit of a crap shoot either way you look at it, but so is expecting Dems to have a D+6 or more spread or GOP a  R +2 or more spread.

Also, the pollsters are admitting that its harder than ever to try to keep these things stable because they're only getting 10% response rates. Polling is very volatile right now with Party ID all over the board and results shooting off in wild areas(all the more reason why the RCP average has been rising in value this election over previous ones).

I think it's reasonable to assess a small shift to at least even(from R) or D +5(from higher D). It shouldn't shift the poll much, but it should make your averages a little more stable(and help to smooth out some noise).

I've mentioned before that I think the self selection in polling responses(10% respond) may be heavily influenced by the moods of certain voters.

[King]

LOL, so now we're supposed to believe that GOP party ID is as low as during Watergate.

Look analyzing party ID skew in polls is a bit of a crap shoot either way you look at it, but so is expecting Dems to have a D+6 or more spread or GOP a  R +2 or more spread.

I don't get it.  You have to be trolling.  Did you even read my post?  How can someone read my OP and still try to argue this at all?

Yes, R identity is low because Tea Party members/supporters claim themselves Independent conservatives and because the Rs moved so far to the right to appease these people back in the primaries, a lot of moderates are still staying as Independent.  At the heart of these polls, the ideological background is not only in-line with a 2004 type election, but actually even MORE conservative of a sample compared to 2004.

[Wonkish1]

LOL, so now we're supposed to believe that GOP party ID is as low as during Watergate.

Look analyzing party ID skew in polls is a bit of a crap shoot either way you look at it, but so is expecting Dems to have a D+6 or more spread or GOP a  R +2 or more spread.

I don't get it.  You have to be trolling.  Did you even read my post?  How can someone read my OP and still try to argue this at all?

Yes, R identity is low because Tea Party members/supporters claim themselves Independent conservatives and because the Rs moved so far to the right to appease these people back in the primaries, a lot of moderates are still staying as Independent.  At the heart of these polls, the ideological background is not only in-line with a 2004 type election, but actually even MORE conservative of a sample compared to 2004.

LOL, so your 'smart analysis' is to try to line up ideology in a single poll? You do realize that ideology is very volatile based upon how the question is asked, right? For example: One of the best pollsters out there Battleground asks that question with a tiered answer system that polls usually ~60% conservative. You can't link ideology. Anybody that has ever studied ideology polling would know this.

What's the term you youngins say again? Oh yeah, epic fail! And its even more hilarious that a few hacks followed you up by clapping.

I'll tell you what, how much do you want to bet that the exit polls will:
A) Feature both parties with party ID in the 30s
B) That the D spread will either be +5 or less.

If you really believe this crap you'll put your money where your mouth is. Loser donates to the other parties national committee and posts the confirmation email(excluding personal info) on the thread. How much do you want to bet?

[Simfan34]

While your analysis is fairly sound, I must admit I really can't think beyond laughing at the fact Democrats are now resorting to "unskewing polls".

A poll is either good, or it isn't. If you're so good at this King- and I'm not saying you're not or even sarcastically- go into polling. Heck, that may be what you want to do, but don't overanalyse the thoughts of a few hundred random people.

[SirMuxALot]

We need an Intrade market for exit poll DRI breakdown.  I will sell you guys all the D+7 you guys want at 2:1.

That money wouldn't go where those mouths are.

[Wonkish1]

We need an Intrade market for exit poll DRI breakdown.  I will sell you guys all the D+7 you guys want at 2:1.

That money wouldn't go where those mouths are.

I would sell the hell out of D+7. Apparently I'll have a lot of takers too if we're to believe the Dems on these threads.

And I would likely be willing to risk a ton of capital on it too because I could hedge away any value at risk I didn't want by simultaneously going long Obama win. It would create a perfect arbitrage with the only way I could lose is if Romney won on a D +7 or more.

Come on guys put you're money where your mouth is buy that D + 7 up. This bookie is open for business.

[King]

And party self identification isn't volatile? You sir are the fool.

Look at jfern's post to see how consistent that ideology ID has been.

[Speed of Sound]

And party self identification isn't volatile? You sir are the fool.

Look at jfern's post to see how consistent that ideology ID has been.

You're arguing with someone who is only a denialist, not an actual debater with actual points to make. Your effort is better spent on your work than on some of these guys.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some news about Kafka.

[Orion0]

Doesn't this still leave room for discussion of the ideological vote distribution?

What are your numbers for how the 2012 moderate vote splits between Obama and Romney?

Yeah, it definitely will just shift over to being the same discussion, just with new substance, so long as everyone is wise enough to read what King has put together here. But those numbers should be much easier to track and speculate on and shift accordingly compared to the highly fickle and unclear Party IDs.

Yup this changes nothing really. Same discussion, now only speculating on moderates instead of independents. It's fancy math-art that really doesn't add much to the discussion although you seem to be peddling this pretty forcefully judging by your links to this thread appearing all over.

For the record, regarding the polling that took place in Alberta in 2012 for our election, and let me say this clearly no amount of reasonable adjustments or corrections to the polling could have predicted the results. None. At all. Adjusting for ideology, party affiliation, demographic turnout, nothing could have predicted the election day results. To match polling with results required taking the highest polling percentage of undecided voters (around 20% although polling ranges were from 3 to 20) and then giving over 80% of those undecided to one party, which no reputable polling firm would do in their right mind.

So bash your heads against the wall with all this nonsense. If anything enthusiasm to vote in my opinion is perhaps the most useful, as I believe it allows for an accurate snapshot of voters. I know many people that give random or deliberately inaccurate information to pollsters and then vote differently or not at all. /endrant

[Speed of Sound]

Doesn't this still leave room for discussion of the ideological vote distribution?

What are your numbers for how the 2012 moderate vote splits between Obama and Romney?

Yeah, it definitely will just shift over to being the same discussion, just with new substance, so long as everyone is wise enough to read what King has put together here. But those numbers should be much easier to track and speculate on and shift accordingly compared to the highly fickle and unclear Party IDs.

Yup this changes nothing really. Same discussion, now only speculating on moderates instead of independents. It's fancy math-art that really doesn't add much to the discussion although you seem to be peddling this pretty forcefully judging by your links to this thread appearing all over.

For the record, regarding the polling that took place in Alberta in 2012 for our election, and let me say this clearly no amount of reasonable adjustments or corrections to the polling could have predicted the results. None. At all. Adjusting for ideology, party affiliation, demographic turnout, nothing could have predicted the election day results. To match polling with results required taking the highest polling percentage of undecided voters (around 20% although polling ranges were from 3 to 20) and then giving over 80% of those undecided to one party, which no reputable polling firm would do in their right mind.

So bash your heads against the wall with all this nonsense. If anything enthusiasm to vote in my opinion is perhaps the most useful, as I believe it allows for an accurate snapshot of voters. I know many people that give random or deliberately inaccurate information to pollsters and then vote differently or not at all. /endrant

Well, I do honestly believe that the manipulation of these numbers will provide a more accurate picture than does Party ID. I've been posting the link in response to people who keep peddling the obviously useless Party ID crap, looking for their response (to which, I might add, none have had any). Is this perfect? Haaaaaaardly. Is it better? I do believe that it is. But you are certainly free to feel otherwise and I understand why you would. Still, I'm very intrigued to see what the work with these numbers wil produce in the year, and I think we all should be, as at the best it could become a useful and perennial general shifter for better poll accuracy, and at worst we just stop using it.

[Wonkish1]

And party self identification isn't volatile? You sir are the fool.

Look at jfern's post to see how consistent that ideology ID has been.

They both are volatile and vary based upon the pollster. Everything inside of these polls are volatile especially when you go from one polling firm/type to another.

It's the ultimate catch 22. It's why you can't even put that much faith into weighting a poll to some pre determined spread either. Some polls have questions asked in such ways as to result in higher party ID or ideology ID spreads and others don't. So you're left wondering what to do. All you do know is that when the exit polls come out it's not going to be D+7 and that both parties will be in the 30s. That's all you do know. You have no idea as to whether or not the party ID in the poll is different because of:
1) Response rates
2) Wording of questions that took another wise good sample and made it seem like a weighted sample
3) Or maybe a different weighting of race or age or whatever ended up boosting the party ID numbers much more than it boosted the actual vote change.
4) You don't know. It could be for 20 different reasons and any of those reasons could have actually impacted the sample itself or just the appearance of the sample.

No matter what you do is going to be a bit of a mess. And polling has only gotten messier over time with cell phones, caller id, net polling, etc.

But at the end of the day, all you can do(if you're going to trust polling) is to hope that by averaging more polls with slightly different methodologies and actively looking into the numbers that you can arrive at maybe some slightly better understanding of the current situation in the race than what any single poll can offer you. That's it!


You're telling me that the annual average for a singular polling outfit polling ideology is 'stable' so that means that a single poll by a different polling outfit has a stable result for that question. Think about that for a second.


But hey what do I know. I guess I must be stupid and easy target to take a bunch of money off of me since your one analysis on one poll is so amazing. So how much will the bet be?